gx3_dead_logic

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It states that the tool reads the project, writes a CSV under the output directory, excludes network-refreshed devices and explains why, and requires the xref DB. This transparently surfaces side effects and prerequisites beyond the input schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is efficient and well structured: it opens with the core purpose and examples, then reports output format, side effects, exclusions, and prerequisites. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no redundant or filler content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it explains what findings look like, that a CSV is produced, what input is required, and what project elements are intentionally skipped. An agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool, and to interpret its results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema covers the single parameter root with a 100% description ('Extracted project folder'), so the baseline is 3. The description references 'Reads the project' but does not add further parameter-level meaning such as path format, supported filesystems, or validation rules. The schema already does the essential work here.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Find logic that can never do anything', and enumerates concrete kinds of dead logic (never-closing contacts, unread coils/words, unmatched SET latches). This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools like gx3_lint or gx3_interlock_check.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: when searching for dead/unused logic in a project. It also discloses a prerequisite ('Requires the xref DB') and a scope limitation (network-refreshed devices are excluded), which helps an agent decide whether this tool can be used. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use this instead of X', so it does not reach a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.